Tax-6, New Delhiappellantthrough:mr. Asheeshjain,Sr. Standingcounselwithmr. Vikranta.maheshwari,Advocate v. Modi Industries Ltd

$~3&4*IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI +ITA No. 503/2017 +ITA No. 504/2017 PR. COMMISSSIONEROF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHIAppellantThrough:Mr. AsheeshJain,Sr. StandingCounselwithMr. VikrantA.Maheshwari,Advocate. versus MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. RespondentThrough:Mr. RohitJain,AdvocatewithMr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER%09.08.2017 C.M. No. 24209/2017(exemptions)in ITA No. 504/2017 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M. No. 24205/2017(delay) in ITA No. 503/2017C.M. No. 24208/2017(delay) in ITA No. 504/2017 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing is condonedand the applications are disposed of. ITA No. 503/2017& ITA No. 504/2017 3.The Revenue isinappeal against theimpugned order dated25'^October,2016 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal('ITAT') ITANo.503/2017&ITANo.504/2017Page 1 of3 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2007-08 in ITA No.733 and 788/Del/2013. 4. The question that arose before the ITAT was whether the income from thethree properties given on rent by the Assessee should be treated as businessincome or income from house property? 5. Before the Assessing Officer ('AO'),the Assessee contended that theincome in question had always been assessed as 'incomefrom houseproperty'from AY 1964-65 onwards under Section 22 of the Income-taxAct, 1961 ('Act').The learned AO, in para 2.1.1 of the assessment orderdated 28^*^ December2009, however, noted the above position but took adifferent stand in the AY in question only because, according to him, "awrong decision should not be allowed to be carried on without rectifying if. 6. While the AO'sdecision to take it upon himself to right what heconsidered to be wrongs committed in the preceding years is questionable,the ITAT has, in the impugned order, taken note of the fact that income fromat least two of the three properties in question had been consistently treatedas income from house property and accepted as such by the Revenue.Regarding the income from the third of those properties, although a remandwas ordered by the ITAT to the AO for redetermination, the Assessee haschosen not to go in appeal since the amount involved was insignificant. 7. The plea of the Revenue that, even in respect of the other two properties,the order should be remanded to the AO does not find favour with the Court.Unless any material change in the circumstanceshas occurred from theearlier AYs, where the income from the letting of the premises has beenITANo.503/2017&ITANo.504/2017Page 2 of3 consistently treated as income from house property, there was no occasionfor a changed stand on the part of the Revenue. 8. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals aredismissed. S. MURALIDHAR,J. AUGUST 09,2017'anb' PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. ITA NO.S03/20I7&ITA No.504/2017